Showing posts with label e-Health Ontario. Show all posts
Showing posts with label e-Health Ontario. Show all posts

Thursday, November 05, 2009

CANADIAN'S AND THE RUSE OF HEALTHCARE 2.0

Healthcare is the world’s most information intensive industry. Every day this industry produces massive volumes of data that, if properly used, can improve clinical practice and outcomes, guide planning and resource allocation, and enhance accountability. Electronic health information is fundamental to better health care. There will be no quantum leap forward in health care quality and efficiency without high quality, user-friendly health information compiled and delivered electronically.

The task of building an information network that patients, providers, managers, and policy-makers can use to improve decision-making at all levels is truly daunting (and the health information “agenda” competes with innumerable other claims on resources.)

That said, Canada’s Healthcare Informatics arena is rapidly changing, primarily due to growing public and private investment in Electronic Health Information Systems (EHIS). At the same time, a recent economic study (November 2009) identifies a serious need for increased labor and skills amongst Canadian Health Information (HI) and Health Information Management (HIM) professionals over the next five years. To compound further, there are fears in both the private and public sector that the successful implementation of EHIS systems is potentially jeopardized due to lack of qualified human resources. Add to this - - issues around Canada Health Infoway Funding, a limited and flawed EHR blueprint, Federal and Provincial politics, lobbying, posturing, competition, and (yes) corruption - - and it’s easy to see how a feast or famine (all or nothing) environment has been established.

From a consumer standpoint in Canada, advancing patient care has also unfortunately been tied directly to those vendors that have the bandwidth to extend a provincial or national solution (even if those platforms are antiquated and in many cases not standardized). This discussion (and subsequent funding) is entirely based on resources, and while absolutely a relevant conversation - - in practice - - has only left Canadian’s with a sub-par platform and an increased tax-burden.

So, while increasing evidence (and PR buzz) attempts to illuminate progress in extending a Canada-wide EHIS - - it’s really only proven to be lip service. As political pressures mount, huge contracts are extended to vendors who are in many cases no more equipped to deliver an integrated EHIS than a local start-up.

The best example one might extend related to the state-of-the-union of Canadian EHIS is from the “Wizard of Oz”.  One might think that it’s only a matter of time before Canadian citizens get wise to the kick-back’s, cost over-run’s, deception, and general systemic corruption in Canadian EHIS. Let’s not even get started on the role of “Consultants” in all of this. The unfortunate challenge is that, unless one is deeply entrenched in this sector for a number of years - - most investigations are only typically scratching the surface.

Neither the Canadian Government nor any of its elected bodies have yet to even get close to the real issues (and savvy multi-national vendors are well aware of this and capitalizing on it.) When Canadians finally pull back the metaphorical ‘curtain’ to see the ‘Wizard’ pulling furiously on ropes and levers - - to attempt to evidence progress - - they’re going to wonder whose hand was on the wheel?  Just take a look at the long, detailed (and growing) list of Federal and Provincial resources (i.e. dollars) allocated to accomplishing specific EHIS tasks that are never completed or even accounted for.

To be continued...

Monday, August 17, 2009

Province of Ontario: Ex-eHealth Chair quits ... again




August 14, 2009 | The STAR | QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU

Hudson's resignation from health ministry comes as PM wades into spending scandal. Premier Dalton McGuinty's go-to man in reducing health-care wait times has left the government – less than two months after being replaced as chairman of the scandal-ridden eHealth Ontario.

Acclaimed neurosurgeon Dr. Alan Hudson last week resigned from his full-time, $292,653-a-year job leading the province's efforts to reduce delays in cancer and cataract surgery, diagnostic imaging, cardiac procedures and hip and knee replacements. Reached on vacation with his family, Hudson said in an interview that he consulted Health Minister David Caplan and others before deciding to step down last Friday after five years in the job.

"Everyone wanted me to stay on, but I am not going to stay on until I die," said the 71-year-old Order of Canada recipient. "It is time for me to do other things – play with my grandchildren, do some travelling."

The news, first reported on thestar.com, came as Prime Minister Stephen Harper yesterday waded into the eHealth spending imbroglio – in which consultants who were paid as much as $3,000 a day raised public ire by expensing tea and Choco Bites cookies – with a caustic rebuke of McGuinty for costly delays in creating electronic health records for Ontarians.

"The federal government had in its budget considerable funds available for the (Canada) Health Infoway, for the expansion and pushing forward of the project to make health records in this country electronic, so I obviously would encourage the provincial government to get on with rectifying the problems in that area."

Senior provincial officials countered that the federal government has not yet given Ontario the cash for electronic health records. Because he was on contract, Hudson will not receive a golden handshake like the $317,000 given to departed eHealth chief executive Sarah Kramer, who finally broke her silence yesterday with an acerbic statement slamming the media and health ministry bureaucrats.

"There's no severance," said Terry Sullivan, chief executive of Cancer Care Ontario, where the wait times offices are headquartered. He noted Hudson was rattled by the eHealth experience, which became a major political headache for McGuinty, prompting him to clamp down on untendered contracts to consultants and the meals and treats they expense to taxpayers.

"He was distressed and troubled by the whole experience. ... I assume that was part of his calculus," Sullivan said of Hudson, crediting him for the innovative wait-times system that began tracking treatment times with an eye to improving them. A replacement for Hudson on the wait-times file has not been determined, but Sullivan urged the government to do so, noting that general surgeries will eventually be added to the list.

Hudson's departure is a further blow to McGuinty's Liberals in the wake of the eHealth debacle, in which revelations of spending abuses have continued to emerge – including an estimated $25,000 spent on writing and tweaking a speech for Kramer. She left the agency in June amid furor over executive perks, big bonuses and untendered contracts that total at least $16 million of taxpayers money. Kramer's 448-word statement issued yesterday appears to have been triggered by McGuinty's declaration Wednesday that it was a "mistake" to put her in the job.

She defended eHealth's hiring of (overtly) highly paid consultants, saying she had to take over a "moribund and deeply troubled and dysfunctional organization." While she acknowledged the expense was "not negligible," she deemed it an "essential investment" in speeding progress to creating electronic health records.

"As with any major change, our efforts were met with strong, intractable resistance and outright hostility in some quarters, including within the Ministry of Health and a few other vested interests in the health care sector," Kramer wrote, also blaming "sensationalized media coverage." She did not respond to requests for an interview.

Hudson defended Kramer's performance, saying she did the best she could to bring electronic health records to the masses. "She is not a dreadful person," he told the Star.
-------------------
See original story

Tuesday, December 02, 2008

Sarah Kramer, President and CEO of eHealth Ontario Outlines Health Strategy


Sarah Kramer, President and CEO of eHealth Ontario spoke about the future of eHealth in Ontario at HealthAchieve 2008.

She focused on Ontario’s eHealth strategy, its system transformation goals and how the government’s goals will be implemented. In her words,the overall emphasis of eHealth in Ontario is to deliver clear, measurable, transparent results … that improve patient care quality and safety. Click here for the full text of her speech.

Background
eHealth Ontario is the marriage of the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care’s e-Health Program and the province’s Smart Systems for Health Agency (SSHA) under one banner.

Three key e-health priorities have been identified for the next few years including a Diabetes Registry, an e-health portal to centralize health information on an easily accessible web site, and e-prescribing which will eliminate hand written prescriptions and reduce medication errors.

The ultimate goal of the e-health strategy is to create an electronic health record (EHR) for all Ontarians by 2015. An electronic health record will provide patients and providers with the ability to access, share and use health information. It will improve health care delivery, increase patient safety, reduce ER wait times and create a more effective health care system.

QUICK FACTS
* eHealth Ontario will work with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner/Ontario to ensure the protection of personal health information;
* The Ontario government created SSHA in 2003 to improve patient care through a variety of initiatives, including network hosting and secure e-mail.

Saturday, November 29, 2008

TVO SPOTLIGHT "THE DEBATE: E-HEALTH PROMISED?"





FOCUS: Ontario's ailing e-health initiative: If e-health is so good, why is it so slow in coming at UHN?

FEATURES: University Health Network’s (UHN) Centre for Global eHealth Innovation’s Kevin Leonard, and former UHN CEO Tom Closson.

The entire TV program can viewed here.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Differentiating between Single Sign-on (SSO), Enterprise Single Sign-on (ESSO), ESSO with Context, and Clinical Portals.


So you eventually want an EHR.
What’s the best path?
Depends on the goals.


The Evolving Landscape
Healthcare delivery organizations, departments, and stakeholders across the continuum of care use a wide variety of IT systems for storing clinical information that are rarely integrated. This disparate data can result in time-consuming and painstaking efforts to obtain a patient’s complete medical record.

Today, Healthcare organizations have a vested interest in creating an infrastructure that delivers integrated patient information. Not only is the outcome of care improved when caregivers have complete, usable data, but additional benefits are immediately acquired. These benefits include improved operational efficiency, easier compliance with regulatory requirements, a reduced need for investment in IT systems and implementation, the ability to measure and manage quality of care and participate in research, and much more.

Information systems available to healthcare organizations until now have not been able to fully to deliver these benefits. This is primarily due to IT systems lacking a common or standardized method of representing clinical data (nomenclature, terminology, coding systems, etc.). In addition, the high degree of specialization demanded by clinical practices, as well as the tendency of healthcare organizations to adopt a best of breed approach for IT systems implementation, has increased the level of diversity and disparity of data. Consequently healthcare organizations have been forced to settle for basic, limited levels or integration of their clinical applications.

Single Sign-on (SSO) and Enterprise Single Sign-on (ESSO)
Although Single Sign-On (SSO) technology dates back with some vendors to 1996, adoption has been slow. Within the past two years, interest and deployment in this technology have increased, and the solution has blossomed into more than a security solution. This technology is primarily supported by Healthcare delivery organizations to assist their IT departments in their administrative duties.

In its simplest form, Enterprise Single sign-on (ESSO) is an access management mechanism whereby a single action of user authentication and authorization can permit a user (via batch credential provisioning) to access all applications with access permission, without the need to enter multiple passwords. In the Healthcare reality, an ESSO solution by definition can reduce administrative burden, extend access to multiple applications, and increase productivity and user satisfaction.

Imagine ESSO like a Windows Desktop environment. Once logged on, users have access to any/all applications (i.e. MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc.) simply by double-clicking the icon on the desktop. When the application is launched from the desktop, users naturally do not need to sign-in again. However, users still need to navigate through multiple applications, pages, and disparate data to find the clinical information they’re looking for. In a client-server environment, this is further compounded by the time required to launch the application and search for the specific patient’s clinical information. In today’s ESSO reality, to have a comprehensive view of a patient’s clinical data would effectively require launching all the associated applications and searching through disparate data individually. While the user may not need to sign-on to access the systems, it’s clear this isn’t intuitive, nor time or cost effective.

ESSO and Context Management
A conversation about SSO would not be complete without talking about context management. Some may have the impression that investing in a SSO solution means the combination of functionality afforded by both SSO and context management. Providers have expressed problems when their constituency did not understand what they were buying if they were not getting both.

Context management automatically synchronizes multiple applications in response to a single user gesture directed at any application using readily identifiable information such as a particular patient, encounter or observation. Put simply, if using multiple applications simultaneously, a Patient-search on one system can trigger a similar search in other systems. This allows for the user to access each disparate database in context. This technology is primarily supported by Healthcare delivery organizations to assist their IT departments in their administrative duties. When combined with ESSO, Context Management can extend user authentication, patient search, and allow access to multiple vendors’ native applications. More sophisticated implementations can extend context sharing at the encounter level and/or in a bidirectional manner. However, users still require the user to navigate through multiple native applications and pages to find the detailed clinical information they’re looking for. Not ideal but significantly more value than simple (E)SSO.

The premise of ESSO with Context Management implies by definition that ALL users need access to the same finite and highly detailed clinical data found in the specific department or best-of-breed system. Most would agree that the meticulous and detailed needs of those using a Lab system, for example, in the Lab environment, would be significantly different than the data needs of someone in the ER trying to access a Patients Lab results to ensure there is not a conflict. In this model, stakeholders have access to the disparate data via the native application. One of the challenges with this model is that Physicians and Clinicians have to learn and navigate through multiple (departmental or “best-of-breed”) applications to get the patient data they require.

Although steps have been made to try and optimize this delivery model, the question remains. Is this as intuitive and streamlined as it could be? Can it expand outside of a single hospital? Eventually, won’t vendors selling (E)SSO with context realize that stakeholders don’t need access to ALL the clinical information available to do their job more effectively, they need access to the clinical data that is relevant to their specific role. Each clinical stakeholder has different needs.

This author contends that the next wave of (E)SSO with context solutions will add a presentation layer to the offering such that the user is presented only with the clinical data required (versus just access to the clinical data.) However, in the context (no pun intended) of not having any access to any clinical information at the point of care, being able to access the native departmental or best-of-breed application via (E)SSO is still a quantum leap for care delivery. In the face of evolving needs and reducing resources, many opt for this path as any solution is better than no solution.

Clinical Portals
This type of solution involves the creation of a customizable user interface that can work with information from different vendors and sources. Portals are designed for the clinical end-user directly at the point of care and offer the ability to manipulate the way information is presented, in most cases regardless of the legacy vendor. They typically involve a bottom layer that is responsible for aggregation of information, and a top layer in which the information is intuitively presented to the caregiver.

For example, portals can display data any number of ways from different sources in a hierarchical structure or simple “tabbed” environment. Think of a Portal solution (results-wise anyway) as the same integration results as an (E)SSO with context solution, however served up in a customizable web-based offering where the user is presented ONLY the clinical data required (versus just access to said clinical data.)

Unlike ESSO with Context, Portals call data directly from the databases where the legacy data resides, not a duplicate of the original transaction on a repository. This ensures data is queried in real-time, eliminates the need for a centralized data repository (CDR) and associated brokers and can also provide advantages in areas such as flexibility, scalability, availability, and even security to a limited extent, because information remains where it is created and each organization is free to administer its resources as it sees fit.

Moreover, Portals by definition offer unfettered use of the information. Because information is only handled in the presentation tier, the type and depth of data manipulation, cross-reference and analysis are unlimited and can be customized by user. This is primarily because, even though Portals are easy for Hospital IT departments to maintain, administer, and manage---they were originally designed to meet the clinical stakeholder’s unique needs.

One of the strongest differentiators for Portals is the fact that Clinicians and Physicians don’t have to learn multiple (departmental or “best-of-breed”) applications to get the clinical data they require. Users only need their respective departmental solution, and a portal to aggregate all other relevant data. Today’s Portals can accomplish everything a (E)SSO with context can all on a future-ready, scalable, standards-based platform. Although (seemingly) diametrically opposed paths, both ESSO with context and Portal paths can by definition provide a comprehensive, transferrable EHR. The differences are in time to implement and cost.

Future Proof
The realistic and “future proof” way to achieve an actual, real-time picture of a patient’s medical history is with a solution that provides interoperability – creating a unified patient record from the various sources holding patient data, no matter where they are located, or in which format. Any solution implemented must also accomplish this while adhering to privacy and security policies as well as auditing requirements of the organization/s and relevant regulating authorities. Moreover, the solution must be able to resolve issues of identity (name with/without middle initial, married/maiden names, etc.--aka MPI) and to deal with situations in which one patient may have more than one registered identity within and across multiple information systems.

So whether starting from fresh, or currently on a (E)SSO-with-context path and looking for a presentation layer (or EHR/EMR Viewer,) clinical stakeholders need intuitive, customized and streamlined access to relevant patient data. The true benefits of interoperability will only be realized when the integrated patient information is used not only by means of having it presented to the caregiver via a portal of some sort but rather by leveraging the data as a key clinical asset and using it to meet the needs of quality, compliance and management initiatives. The challenges that most organizations deal with in their quest to execute these initiatives mainly revolve around dealing with the lack of access to the broad set of medical data required for successful implementation. A robust interoperability solution holds the key to unlocking this information and turning such initiatives into a reality.

While any given EHR solution theoretically may be achieved via multiple paths, the ultimate vision is to create a single, unified patient record based on data from different information systems, formats, sites and if needed even across organizations, enabling the data to be integrated, analyzed and used – without affecting the systems in which information is stored.

Monday, November 24, 2008

Thursday, November 06, 2008

"R.E.A.C.H." Clinical Portal Making a Difference in Doctors' and Patients’ Lives

R.E.A.C.H. or "Rapid Electronic Access to Clinical Health Information"is an electronic health information portal that allows authorized users access to their patients’ clinical information through a secure web-browser, whether inside or outside of the hospital.

This means Lab and Diagnostic test results, images, transcriptions and progress reports written (at any one of the REACH partner Hospital's) can be viewed immediately by a Physician treating the patient. Currently the REACH portal includes The Credit Valley Hospital William Osler Health Centre, and Halton Health Care. Trillium Health Centre and Headwaters Health Care Centre will be joining the network soon and Hamilton Health Sciences and the Scarborough Hospital also use the same vendor solution. Sharing Patient's clinical information is important because patients move between facilities for across a region to access different types of diagnostic tests and/or procedures---that are not necessarily performed at all facilities. At the Credit Valley Hospital, one of the Physicians was asked what he thought of this new EHR initiative. Here’s what he said.

Dr. Tom McGowan’s Notes*: Wednesday October 15, 2008
Sitting in clinic today it struck me how quickly REACH has changed how I work. Today was a day when I saw new cancer patients with new problems. Of the four new patients I saw today, I needed to look into REACH to get information from other hospitals on two of them. It took seconds to look them up, and find the information I needed from the other hospitals. Before REACH, getting that information would have taken anywhere from 15 minutes to hours, and usually many phone calls.

Given that we’re the only Radiation program in the region, we always see patients who have had all, or large portions, of their care elsewhere. Most of the time the referring doctors make sure all the information is faxed over when the referral is made. Most of the time we can make the decisions we need to make with the information we have. But if there was a recent test, or clinic visit, then we should see that report before we make a final treatment recommendation.

There’s wasted time and effort when information comes in piecemeal. There are times when the results of the test aren’t available when the patient is first referred by their medical doctor (MD). Sometimes the referring MD will send it when it’s ready, and sometimes not. We can’t expect that to happen because it’s too much to ask a busy referring doctor to keep track of upcoming tests, and make sure they’re faxed to us, when ready.

Even if it is sent after the result is in, we’ve got to be sure the new information gets attached to the original. While this normally happens, I’ve had cases where I’ve had our staff call a referring hospital to get a test result faxed over. Sometimes they say they’ve already sent it but we don’t have it. So we get them to send it again, only to find it went to my office rather than my clinic.

When there appear to be duplicates of the same test, there’s more time wasted while I compare the results from the two documents. Only then can I be sure it’s not new information that will influence the patient’s care. It’s pretty obvious that this isn’t the most efficient way to manage anybody’s time. Now I have an advantage that I hadn’t really appreciated until I started to use the REACH portal. By looking at the records from other hospitals, we can sometimes see results of tests that are relevant, but that the patient didn’t realize could be useful, or had completely forgotten about. This type of thing doesn’t happen very often, but when it does, it matters.

So getting back to today; I had two patients that had information I needed from other hospitals. Thanks to REACH, I had it, easily after looking for a few seconds. I didn’t have to figure out what to ask for, where things might have been done, and deciding whether I really needed it in the first place. I was able to spend all my clinic time doing clinical work, seeing my patients, explaining things to them, and figuring out what they needed to do next. And that makes for a satisfying day.

*Dr. Tom McGowan is Physician Director, Radiation Oncology at The Carlo Fidani Peel Regional Cancer Centre located at The Credit Valley Hospital.



---
Original article published in "A Credit to your Health" AUTUMN 2008 / VOLUME 10 ISSUE 4.